Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/07/1999

Home

goB. August 25, 1999 -- Page 7 of the narrowest and smallest lots in the zoning district and said its shape and existing driveway and garage severely limited or precluded the installation of any reasonably sized inground pool. Lang appealed to court, and the court agreed with the board that the property's shape created an undue hardship. Lang appealed again, and the appeals court reversed. The appeals court found the board's decision was unreasonable because its only reason for allow- ing an oversized pool that violated setback requirements was its belief that Calabrese's inability to have a diving board with a smaller pool amounted to a hardship. The board appealed. DECISION: Reversed. The board didn't abuse its discretion in granting Calabrese a variance. Calabrese could build the pool, subject to the conditions the board placed on his variance. It wasn't the size of the pool and Calabrese's desire for a diving board that created the hardship, it was the unusual narrowness of the property in relation to the zoning ordinance's minimum requirements. The board reasonably con- eluded the unique size and shape of Calabrese's property caused the need for a variance. The property was 22 feet narrower than allowed, and that, combined with the existing driveway and garage, severelly limited where Calabrese could build a pool. Similarly, if the property weren't substantially undersized, the rear yard area -- which governed the permitted size of swimming pools -- would be big enough to support a pool with little or no variance. Citation: Lang v. Zo~i~g Board of Adjustme~t of the Borough of North Caldwell, Supreme Court of New Jersey, No. A-20 September Term 1998 (1999). see alxo: Place v. Board of Adjustment of Saddle River, 200 A.2d 601 (1964). Nonconforming Use -- City challenges temporary order prohibiting it from enforcing zoning ordinance MINNESOTA (7/20/99) -- In 1985, Haefele bought a duplex in a rural area zoned for single-family dwellir~s. The house could be used as a group home for seven to 16 people as a legal nonconforming use. Haefele leased the property to a company that used it as a group home for about 10 years. When the tenant left, Haefele tried to rent or sell the property for use as a group home. In 1997, Haefele began negotiating with Coughlin, who wanted to rent the house to run a group home. Coughlin.contacted the city, which told her she could house up to 16 people without violating the zoning ordinance. Haefele and Coughlin spent $15,000 on repairs to the property and Coughlin spent another $42,000 preparing the property for use as a group home. After neighborhood opposition arose, the city concluded Haefele had